3 Addition to Chapel Hill
CITY OF
CßANHASSEN
.3
¡,
f
!
,-
PC DATE: 12/1/99
CC DATE: 1/10/00
CASE #: 98-12 SPR
By: Al-Jaff
."~,
,';'
-
"
f
)
j
..
f
(
-
~
J
-
-
)
STAFF REPORT
f
t:
¡
,-'
/
PROPOSAL:
Site Plan Review to allow a 16,680 square foot classroom and a 2,000 square foot
library addition to an existing building and a Variance to allow a 30 foot Front Yard
Setback, Chapel Hill Academy.
7707 Great Plains Boulevard, located south of West 78th Street, East of Frontier
Trail, and west of Great Plains Boulevard.
;.-
-~/
iF,
0::
~ "
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Chapel Hill Academy
306 West 78th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn. Dan Blake 988-8202
f
f,_,
f,;
PRESENT ZONING:
01, Office Institutional District & RSF, Residential Single Family
";
ACREAGE:
4.58 Acres
DENSITY:
N/A
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF; Single Family & Vacated Chan View
S - 01; Office Institutional, West 78th Street, Old St. Hubert's Church and
Cemetery.
E - RSF; Single Family & Frontier Trail
W - CBD & 01; Central Business District, Colonial Square and Office
Institutional, Country Clean.
.".;
"'''
~'::
,-,
WATER AND SEWER:
Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.:
The site contains an existing church, 2 houses, 2 garages, and a
playground. There are a number of mature oak trees scattered ove
the easterly portion of the site.
-.¡.
d.
'~
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
Public/Semi-Public
[
..
. ~1 ~(~I ~~,
/ --rl' / ~
._ I I \ '
co i
'-
t-I
St
'\Qfli ,-- r~-
, ~ ~ L---JY~ c/ // /~
1- : ~ ~I//J /
:) ~/ ~l //t ,1./,
-----r c.. \ .1,- l / \' I
_~_-_/ ~ -;:.J ~ './~--I ./ ~_ / ,/ (
,~'\ ..\;' /'/¡ I
~~/ \ I ·
/(
I
,
Q)
.-
C:' I
el
i I i ! '-I
_ ,---,.-- '---T--~ I f~I'
, I . I '
~ ;~~~J f-t~ ~--r¡ i"-~ i J
, ::í', : 0 i i I I : I '
,., ; u'; I ~ r----t---j I'~-¡ WI
, .! ,.-oIII(¡ r I 7C ! I
'~ '''''''11 'i I:
,--;- :-'" '-_.......--1. ¡-. I Z---~·' '
_ I ,--....L.' I I N"\
~--r----i ~---~ r--------' UoJ
I L I I
I I ---~cn
--'--'--, ~~ L ;Ë'-
hat' --~-
L---/
r
I
,
I
I '
-
I I
-----,-------¡ :
, 'I
______ \ I f---------~
:1 1In :
_78th
, i
W
r
'I
lit:
I ,I~
I l-->.j 17~
L_ ~ 'I .'--~G
I '----<ð.~- ~n~~
i .
I
i 77th ~ 8t n.____,
, , , , 1\, "\
I-¡-~ -, -, , I i_----'
,i I I I ! i I I I
i I ~ ~ I" J
~....----.-----.., ~--~~-..-----,--.--~
: ,than !View i ,
~...!.._.....; ~__------..i____ l____..,.__-----L-____
,...----r~-,__~
; I Ii:
I..---.------; , I
Ii;
i : I ¡ I
I : I I
,r-----j i I
, _....l--.....l..-----'
~-T----·~-~-;-i---,
¡ : ,,
. ,
I: i i
::! : ¡
L-~___~
----,-----------.--.
,
, ,
i .
~_:
'"
~ '
I
/
/
//,-
\
-;-;:----
"
/-------~
/1 '\
/ I '\
.,,~
f.-----'\
r--¡
I i
¡-----j
¡ I
Ii
~
I I
,---1
I ,
Chapel Hill Academy
January 10, 2000
Page 2
On June 22, 1998, the City Council approved an Interim Use Permit #98-1, with a variance to
locate a modular structure 8.5 feet from the northern property line for Chapel Hill Academy. One
of the conditions of approval required the applicant to submit a complete site plan application no
later than one year after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Another condition stated that the
Interim Use Permit shall expire in 5 years from the date approved by the City Councilor until the
expansion of the school is completed, whichever comes first. The Certificate of Occupancy was
issued on September 3, 1998, and the plans were submitted on August 31, 1999. The applicant has
given the City an extension to process this application by January 25, 2000.
PROPOSAl J~TJMMARV
The applicant is requesting site plan review approval for the construction of a 16,680 square foot
classroom and a 2,000 square foot library addition and a 5 foot front yard setback variance to allow
the addition to be located 30 feet from the front property line. This is the first phase of a 77,260
square foot expansion. The 16,680 square foot classroom addition is proposed to be located along
the south portion of the site, adjacent to West 78th Street. The 2,000 square foot library addition is
proposed to be located along the western portion of the site (see sheet PHI). The majority of the
site is zoned 01, Office Institutional, while the easterly portion is zoned RSF, Residential Single
Family District and is within the Highway 5 Overlay District. The site is located north of West 78th
Street, west of Great Plains Boulevard, east of Frontier Trail, and south of vacated Chan View. The
site has an area of 4.58 acres. Access to the site is gained via Great Plains Boulevard. The site
contains an existing church, temporary modular classroom building, 2 houses, 2 garages, and a
playground.
Staff has been working with the applicant for approximately three months. This site has been
discussed on several occasions as part of Vision 2002 and Old Town. Design concepts were
generated for the area. They are as follows:
.
1. Form a compact center by creating a series of rooms throughout the downtown.
2. Complete pedestrian connections that lead to and through the downtown.
3. Create a distinct downtown district through architectural forms and the shape of vegetation.
4. Reinforce the sense of the street as a room by reflecting the setback of existing buildings in
new development.
5. Locate buildings close to the street, with parking behind or beside the buildings.
6. Create a strong relationship between buildings, pedestrian spaces and the street.
7. Offer pedestrians safety and convenience by providing entries from both streets and parking
areas.
8. Select building practices and architectural elements to reinforce the historic character of
West 78th Street.
Chapel Hill Academy
January 10, 2000
Page 3
The site has some challenges, however, the plan for the school expansion was designed to meet the
design concepts enumerated above. The existing building was built in phases and as each phase
was constructed a different building material was used (brick, wood, fluted block, and glass
blocks). The goal of the expansion was to give the building a new image, improve the appearance,
and build an addition that blends in with the area.
The applicant prepared a master plan to reflect the ultimate expansion and the final appearance of
the building and site layout. The overall plan is proposed to be completed in three phases. It is
possible for this project to be completed in 5 or 10 years. At this time, the intent is to complete
phase one within the next two years. This phase has to blend in with the existing building, provide
a transition and set the ftamework for the ultimate expansion. The proposed addition uses rock face
block. The colors include the same shade of red brick used on the base of the westem elevation of
the existing building. The applicant will then introduce a gray projecting windowsill topped by
beige block. The color combination will blend in with the existing building since the west wall
adjacent to the proposed phase one expansion is glass. The problem relates to the size of the block
the applicant proposes to use. The majority of the buildings within the area use standard dimensio!J,
brick or siding (2 x 8 inch brick, or 4 to 6 inch siding). The applicant is proposing to use 8 x 16
inch block. We explained to the applicant that such materials are acceptable in an
industrial/warehouse district but not in the heart of a residential area. We recommend the size of
the block should not exceed 4 x 12 inches and have a smooth face. Entrances into the building are
well defined with a projecting pitched element. Windows surround the building with the exception
of areas screened by trees. The gymnasium was discussed at length. The school is a one story, low
profile building, which is proportionate to the residential area. The gymnasium is equivalent to a
large box two story building. The applicant located the gym along the northwest comer of the
building. This location sits 8 feet below the single family homes located north of the subject site.
The applicant also introduced projecting columns to break up the wall mass on the gymnasium.
There is an existing Service Driveway via West 78th Street. This driveway will be closed and
replaced by two service drives via Frontier Trail and Great Plains Boulevard. The plans do no,
show the location of the trash enclosure.
An existing chain link fence is located along the south and southeast comer of the site. This fence
will be removed. In order to accommodate the expansion along West 78th Street, the single family
home and detached garage, located north of the existing play area, will be removed. The play area
will replace the single family home and the addition along West 78th Street. The plans reflect a
fence around the relocated play area. The applicant intends to use a chain link type fence. We
encourage the applicant to use a more decorative type fence.
The ultimate expansion of the site will reduce the size of the parking lot drastically. At the present
time, there are 132 parking spaces, which far exceeds the needs of Chapel Hill Academy. The
ordinance requires one parking space for each classroom or office room, plus one space for each
one hundred fifty square feet of eating area, auditorium or gymnasium or cafeteria intended to be
Chapel Hill Academy
January 10, 2000
Page 4
used as an auditorium. It is the applicant' s responsibility to demonstrate that the parking will be
adequate for the ultimate expansion of the site. Parking will be revisited and evaluated as each of
the remaining phases appears for site plan approval. Since the Planning Commission meeting,
the applicant submitted a breakdown of the gathering spaces in the building at the time of
ultimate expansion. It appears that the site will require 72 parking spaces. The applicant is
providing 84 spaces. Parking will still be examined to insure compliance with the ordinance
as future phases are reviewed.
A sidewalk is located along the southern and eastern portion of the site. The sidewalk along
Frontier Trail is approximately 3 feet wide. The sidewalk along West 78th Street is 6 feet wide.
Approximately, 150 feet of the sidewalk along the southeast portion of the site, facing Frontier Trail
is missing. In order to complete pedestrian circulation around the site, the applicant must construct
that portion of the sidewalk.
There are setback variances associated with this application. The ordinance requires a 35 foot front
yard setback. The site is located within an established neighborhood with buildings that maintain a
substantially reduced setback. In order to reinforce and reflect the setback of existing buildings,
reinforce the established character, and be consistent with the Vision 2002, we asked the applicant
to bring the building closer to West 78th Street. The building maintains a 30 foot setback from
West 78th Street and 32 feet from Frontier Trail. While there is no hardship to justifY this variance
and it is purely an aesthetic and design issue, staff is recommending approval of the setback
variance to reflect the established standards of this area and to implement the vision of the 2002
study.
,
The overall concept plan is well designed. Staff is recommending approval of phase 1 of the Chapel
Hill Academy with front yard variances with conditions.
RACKGROIJNn
i;
St. Hubert's Church has had a presence in the community that dates back to its early history. It has
operated as a church and school pre-dating today's ordinances and requirements.
On November 3, 1975, the City Council approved a conditional use permit for the parish of St.
Hubert's to erect a complex consisting of a rectory, parish offices, meeting rooms/classrooms and a
church structure. This involved the relocation of the church from the south to the north side of
West 78th Street. In 1997, St. Hubert's Church completed a new structure in Villages on the Pond
and vacated the complex located on West 78th Street.
Chapel Hill Academy leased the space to operate a private school. They needed additional
classroom space to accommodate the increased number of students. The ultimate plan is to
construct an addition over the next few years. They requested approval to locate a temporary
classroom building on the site until they completed their addition. The City Council approved an
Chapel Hill Academy
January 10, 2000
Page 5
Interim Use Permit, which allowed the temporary classroom for a time not to exceed 5 years, or
when the expansion is complete, whichever comes first. The approval was also conditioned upon
the applicant submitting a Master Plan and application for the site within one year of occupying the
building. The applicant has complied with the conditions of the Interim Use Permit.
RIl:HW Å. V ~ ST Å NDA Rns
A meandering berm with landscaping, 2-4 feet in height, is proposed to be installed along the
south and southwest portion of the site. The building is located 70 feet from the north, 32 feet
from the east, 30 feet from the south, and 185 feet from the west property line.
As mentioned earlier, this development falls within the Highway Corridor Overlay District and
must comply with the district's design standards in addition to the Office Institutional District
Standards. The purpose of the overlay district is to promote high-quality architectural and site
design through improved development standards within the corridor. The design standards
should create a unified, harmonious and high qnality visual environment. The plan and design of
the proposed development meets the intent of the overlay district with the following features:
· The architectural style is unique to the building but will fit in with the area character. The
existing building utilizes several materials. The new addition will provide a new image
that will gradually transform this area by updating the image, bringing it closer to the
street, unifying the materials on the building, yet maintain a low profile neighborhood
character. The building is utilizing exterior materials that are durable and of high quality.
Samples of the materials as well as a rendering will be available at the meeting. Staff
believes the color scheme is proper for the building and the area, however, the use of an 8
x 16 inch rough face block is not acceptable and must be reduced to a maximum size of 4
x 12 inches.
· The site is level. A revised landscaping plan incorporating staff's recommendations will ,
provide an increased number of plant materials throughout the site. The berms and
landscaping materials will be concentrated along the southern portion of the property.
Landscaping around the rest of the property will include boulevard trees, parking lot
landscaping and buffer plantings along the northern property line. Some of the mature
oaks and maples, many over 20 inches in diameter, will be saved maintaining the
traditional look of the property.
· A parking lot light plan is required. The plan should incorporate the light style and
height. A detailed sign plan which includes lighting method will also be required.
· The site plan must incorporate trash enclosures.
STT~ PI..4 N FINJ}TN~S
Chapel Hill Academy
January 10, 2000
Page 6
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may
be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas;
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c.
Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
.
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms oflocation and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
(6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Chapel Hill Academy
January 10, 2000
Page 7
Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's Highway 5 corridor
design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan
review requirements with the exception of the fÌ'Ont yard setback. The reduced setback
was requested by staff to bring the building closer to the street reflecting the reduced
setback of other buildings within the neighborhood and to meet the guidelines set by the
Vision 2002. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. The site design is
compatible with the surrounding developments. It is functional and harmonious with the
approved development for this area. The use of a 4 x 12 inch smooth face block will
create a harmonious relationship between the proposed building and existing buildings.
Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. Based upon the foregoing, staff is
recommending approval of the site plan and variances with conditions outlined in the staff report.
VÂRIANCE
The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance
unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size,
physical surroundings, shape or topography. R,easonable use includes a use made by
a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is
not to allow a proliferation of variances but to recognize that and develop
neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-
existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria.
· The nature of this variance is to allow this site to blend in with the existing
neighborhood. The majority of the structures within the area maintain a setback that
ranges between 10 and 30 feet. There is an established standards and granting tht\
variance will allow the building to fit better within the neighborhood.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable,
generally, to other property within the same zoning classification.
.
The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are not applicable
generally to other properties within the same zoning classification.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
.
The purpose of this variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel.
Chapel Hill Academy
January 10,2000
Page 8
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship.
* The difficulty or hardship is not self-created. A standard was set in this area and the
building needs to conform to that standard. Staff advised the applicant to build the
addition toward West 78th Street to comply with the vision 2002 guidelines.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
* Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is
located.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood.
* The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. It
will not increase the traffic.
MTSCF.T ,I ,A NROTJS
The plans propose a series of additions to the existing Chapel Hill Academy site. Phase I of the
proposed expansion is the southerly proposed addition. This addition will have very minimal
impact to the City's existing infrastructure or street system. However, the remaining proposed
improvements in the master plan will affect City inftastructure and traffic circulation. These
items are not addressed in this report, but will be as future phases are submitted for approval.
.
r.RAßTNr.
Additional grading will be required for the proposed addition which will result in a loss of some
of the existing trees on the site. This area of the site is proposed to be filled approximately two
feet to match the existing building elevation and then slope towards West 7St Street and Frontier
Trail. The plans propose erosion control fencing around the perimeter of the site. A rock
construction entrance will also be required.
ßRATNAr.R
Phase I improvements include extension of a storm sewer line ftom the catch basin at the
Chapel Hill Academy
January 10, 2000
Page 9
intersection of Frontier Trail and West 78th Street to the interior of the site. The applicant will
need to supply the City with pre- and post-drainage runoff calculations and verify that the
existing City storm sewer system in Frontier Trail can accommodate runoff generated fÌ'om this
expansion. In addition, the applicant will need to apply for and obtain a construction right-of-
way permit fÌ'Om the Engineering Department. Since this is an expansion to an existing site plan,
no surface water management fees will be applicable.
TIT" ,TTTRS
According to the plans, no additional sanitary sewer or water service is needed with the proposed
addition. If additional utility service is required fÌ'om West 78th Street or Frontier Trail, staffwill
need to review and comment on the plans. The applicant may be responsible for additional sewer
and water hookup fees at time of building permit issuance. The city collects sewer and water
hookup fees based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services Commission.
STREFTS
Phase I improvements will not require any additional street modifications to accommodate the
expansion. However, future phases of the master plan will dramatically impact traffic circulation
on both Great Plains Boulevard and West 78th Street. Staff has had conversations with the
applicant regarding a right-inlright-out only at West 78th Street which staff believes would not
propose a traffic impediment. However, staff will require a traffic delineation island in the right-
inlright-out for better traffic delineation.
LANDSC.APING
Minimum landscaping requirements include 2,744 sq. ft. oflandscaped area around the parking
lot, 11 trees for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along W. 78th St. and neighboring .
property lines. The applicant's proposed landscaping, as compared to the requirements for
landscape area and parking lot trees, is shown in the following table.
North buffer yard B - 20'
Including residence in NW
2 744 s . ft.
11 oversto trees
14 overstory trees
10 200 s . ft.
6 10 oversto trees
::¡. 12 overstory trees
6 overstory trees
9 understory trees
15 shrubs
5 overstory trees
8 understo trees
e 12 overstory trees
Z 9 understory trees
e 15 shrubs
e 5 overstory trees
8 understo trees
¡
Chapel Hill Academy
January 10, 2000
Page 10
comer) 12 shrubs 612 shrubs
75% of total shown ..
.According to city buffer yard ordinance. the project developer is responsible for only 75% oftbe required plantings. Abutting
property owners may plant the remaining 25% on their property. Shown in table is the 75% required.
The applicant has a deficit ofplantings in the following areas: one tree in the parking lot, and
two boulevard trees, llV.tl. and ovutb. buff". ya.ds. There is limited space on the site to
provide the required plantings. The applicant has provided a satisfactory number of trees
considering the space limitation. Staff recommends that the proposed landscape plan be
accepted. appl~"'Q..lJ.t ~l1\.1J."",d",,, plauGuõ¡:) ;'.11 vld""J. tv lU\.I\.Il U~1~J.UU1U UJ.d.;'ua.&.n,,,,,-, L'-\.fu;'J."-,uJ.,-,ul.,,,
, ,T(";HTTN(";
Lighting locations for the parking lot have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded
fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than Yz foot candles
oflight at the property line as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be
submitted when building permits are requested.
COMPLIANCE TABLE - 01 DISTRICT
Ordinance
Chapel Hill Academy Phase I
Building Height
2 stories
,
\,
I-story
Building Setback
N-15' E-35'
S-35' W-35'
N-70' E-32
S-30' W-185'
Parking stalls
30 stalls
132 stalls
.
Parking Setback
N-50' E-35'
S-35' W-35'
N-55' E-260'
S-30 W-20'"
Hard surface
Coverage
65%
43.2% at ultimate expansion
Lot Area
15,000 square feet
4.58 acres
..
The zoning ordinance requires a 35 foot parking setback, however, this is existing parking
and the applicant is improving an existing situation.
Chapel Hill Academy
January lO, 2000
Page 11
PI ,.& NNTNt': COMMl~SJON TTPnA TE
On December 1,1999, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of this
application with conditions. Issues raised at the meeting included:
Parking: The Planning Commission questioned the fact that the building is being increased in
size while the parking lot is being reduced. Staff explained that the previous use, which included
a church and a school, required the parking. The proposed use will require substantially less
parking. Staff also explained that it is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate to the city
that parking requirements are being met. Since then, the applicant submitted a detailed letter
providing a breakdown in square footage of gathering places after expansion is completed.
Based upon these numbers, the building will require 72 spaces. The applicant is providing 84.
Size of block: The applicant proposed the use of 8'xI6' block. The Planning Commission
recommended the applicant utilize a smooth face 4 x 12 inch block for exterior material. This
size will blend in with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Elevations: The Planning Commission was concerned with the north elevation facing the low
density residential area and expressed that they will be critical of the design. They were also
concerned with the design of the gymnasium building. They concurred that the proposed Phase I
addition fit the busy downtown
ST Å RF RECOMMENnA TION
Staff recommends the City Council Pl"....;"g CO"u";oo;v,, recommend approval of Site Plan
review #98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy Master
Plan, as shown in plans dated received August 31, 1999, with the following conditions:
1. h.......""",,"'" pla..ul~J.J.5" £VI bufK..J. )'cud cu."""" ~1 V.d""l tv .l..l.n..""L vJ.J~.LJ"m..."" .....\.fu.;..n...u.u....l.lL".
~
2. fu........."".... ylwlbuc,i) £VI bvuI",vc:ud h.........ò3 ~.L.l vJ.J",.I. tv .l,U\......t VUi~llaJ.U...\J l~'iU~H;,¡tll'"'l1li).
J. 1..1'-'1'-'''"''.... plc:uíL;'.!Sì) £\.,. pc:ul.:..J.510l 0.1\,..,,~.u Uld\;fl Lv u.I.""....l V.LJiuc:uu",,,,, .u....'fu;........ul....uLi).
4. Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. Fencing shall be installed around trees prior
to grading.
5. Any trees removed in excess of submitted plan without City approval will be replaced on
site at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches.
6. The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre-and post-development storm
water runoff calculations and verifY that the existing storm sewer system in Great Plains
Chapel Hill Academy
January 10, 2000
Page 12
Boulevard can accommodate additional runoff being generated from the proposed expansion.
7. The applicant shall obtain from the City a construction right-of-way permit for all work
within City right-of-way or easement areas.
8. If utility connections are required with the proposed addition, staff will need to further review
in greater detail the utility service proposal.
9. The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup fees in accordance with City
ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be based on the number of SAC units
determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission.
10. Building Official Conditions:
a. The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler system
installed throughout.
b. Existing portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as necessary. The cost
of which need not exceed twenty percent of the total project cost.
c. Meet with the Inspection Division as early as possible to discuss issues related to
Building Code.
d. Obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits.
II.Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFP A
13.
b. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine
if additional hydrants will be required.
12. The sidewalk along Frontier Trail shall be connected to the sidewalk along West 78th
Street. The new sidewalk shall maintain a minimum width of 5 feet and be tapered down il1.c
width as it connects with the existing sidewalk along Frontier Trail. The new sidewalk
should connect with the student entrance on the east side of the proposed addition.
13. The overall parking will be evaluated as each phase of the master plan is approved.
14. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree
cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances.
15. Show location of trash enclosure for Phase I. Materials used to build the enclosure shall be
the same as those used on the new building.
16. Show type of fence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged
to use a decorative fencing.
Chapel Hill Academy
January 10,2000
Page 13
17. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities to guarantee site improvements.
18. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances.
19. The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 inch block for exterior material.
20. Chain link fence along the south and southeast corner shall be removed.
21. The existing driveway along West 78th shall be removed and the curb cut replaced with
new curb to match existing curb on West 78th Street. -
22. A detailed sign plan including lighting must be submitted and comply with city
ordinances.
23. The modular units must be removed.
A TT ÄCHMENTS
1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated November 23, 1999.
2. Memo from Steve Torell, Building Official dated November 22, 1999.
3. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated November 22, 1999.
4. Memo from Dan Blake, dated November 23, 1999.
5. Application.
6. Letter from Dan Blake, dated December 29, 1999.
7. Planning Commission minutes dated December 1, 1999.
8. Plans dated received August 31, 1999 and revised tree inventory/preservation plan dated
received January 6, 2000. .
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
City Center Drive, PO Box 147
'anhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.9311900
7eneral Fax 612.937.5739
fineering Fax 612.937.9152
,lie Safety Fax 612.9342524
~b wwW.ci.c!Jilnlwse1l.mll.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer~
November 23, 1999
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Review of Chapel Hill Academy Expansion
7707 Great Plains Boulevard
Upon review of the plans prepared by Westwood Engineering dated September 1,
1999, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
The plans propose a series of additions to the existing St. Hubert's site. Phase I of
the proposed expansion is the southerly proposed addition. This addition will
have very minimal impact to the City's existing infrastructure or street system.
However, the remaining proposed improvements in the master plan will affect
City infrastructure and traffic circulation. These items are not addressed in this
report.
GRADING
Additional grading will be required for the proposed addition which will result in
a loss of some of the existing trees on the site. This area of the site is proposed to
be filled approximately two feet to match the existing building elevation and then
slope towards West 78th Street and Frontier Trail. The plans do propose erosion
control fencing around the perimeter of the site. A rock construction entrance will
also be required.
DRAINAGE
.
Phase I improvements include extension of a storm sewer line from the catch
basin at the intersection of Frontier Trail and West 78th Street to the interior of the
site. The applicant will need to supply the City with pre- and post-drainage runoff
calculations and verify that the existing City storm sewer system in Frontier Trail
can accommodate runoff generated from this expansion. In addition, the applicant
will need to apply for and obtain a construction right-of-way permit from the
Engineering Department. Since this is an expansion to an existing site plan, no
surface water management fees will be applicable.
UTILITIES
According to the plans, no additional sanitary sewer or water service is needed
with the proposed addition. If additional utility service is required from West 78th
Street or Frontier Trail, staff will need to review and comment on the plans. The
City of Challhassfll, A !(TowinK community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channinK downtown, thrivinK businesses, and beautiful parks. A l!Yeat place to lille, work, and pia),
Sharmin Al-Jaff
Chapel Hill Academy Expansion
November 23, 1999
Page 2
applicant may be responsible for additional sewer and water hookup fees at time
of building permit issuance. The city collects sewer and water hookup fees based
on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services Commission.
STREETS
Phase I improvements will not require any additional street modifications to
accommodate the expansion. However, future phases of the master plan will
dramatically impact traffic circulation on both Great Plains Boulevard and West
78th Street. Staff has had conversations with the applicant regarding a right-
in/right-out only at West 78th Street which staff believes would not propose a
traffic impediment. However, staff will require a traffic delineation island in the
right-in/right-out for better traffic delineation.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre-and post-
development calculations and verify that the existing storm sewer system
in Great Plains Boulevard can accommodate additional runoff being
generated ITom the proposed expansion.
2. The applicant shall obtain from the City a construction right-of-way permit
for all work within City right-of-way or easement areas.
3.
If utility connections are required with the proposed addition, staff will
need to further review in greater detail the utility service proposal.
"
4. The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup fees in
accordance with City ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be
based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services Commission.
c: Anita Benson, City Engineer
g:\eng\dave\pc\chape1 hill.doc
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
I Cily Center Drive, PO Box 147
'hanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
General Fax 612.9375739
19ineering Fax 612.9379152
blic Saftty Fax 612,9342524
% www.ci.cJJanhassen.mn.lIs
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ShanninAl-Jaff ~
Steve Torell, Building Official 7 I
November 22, 1999
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Site plan review for: Chapel Hill Academy
Planning Case: 98-12 SPR (file 2)
1 have reviewed the plans for the above project and offer the following comments.
These should be included in the conditions of approval as necessary.
I. The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler
system installed throughout.
2. Existing portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as
necessary. The cost of which need not exceed twenty percent of the total
project cost.
3. The other is~ues are too numerous to mention but include exiting, allowable
building areàs, and types of construction. These are significant issues; the
owners and or their representatives should meet with the Inspections
Division as early as possible to discuss these.
.
G/safety/stlmemos/planlchapelhill
. City ofChanhasse/l. A J!!OwinK community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charmindowntown, thrivi/lV businesses, a/ld beautifùl parks. A vreat vlace to live, work, a/ldolav.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 City Centtr Drive, PO Box 147
ChanhllSsen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
Genml Fax 612,937.5739
Engineering Fax 612.937.9152
Public Safety Fax 611.934.2524
Web www.ci.chanhiJjjen.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner
FROM:
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE:
November 22, 1999
SUBJECT:
Request for a site plan review to allow an expansion to the existing
building on property zoned Office Industrial and located north of
West 78th Street, East of Frontier Trail and West of Great Plains Boulevard,
7707 Great Plains Boulevard, Chapel Hill Academy
Planning Case: 98-12 Site Plan Review (File 2)
I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city
ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available infonnation submitted at
this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items
will be addressed.
] . The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFP A 13,
2. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine if
additional hydrants will be required. ..
g:\safety\ml\plreview98-12
The City of Chauhosse¡¡, A f[I1Jwin[ community with clean lakes, Quality schooli, a charmiM downtown, thrivine businesses, and beautifùl parks. A "eat olace to live, work, and 01
11/23/99 09:01 FAX 6129367839
CENTI;X HOlIES
141001
November 23, 1999
Ms. Sharmin AI-Jaff,
City of Ch""hassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen Minnesota
By fax @ 937-5739
Re: Chapel Hill Academy - Site Plan approvals
Dear ShannÍD:
After much discussion and review of exterior material for our proposed building additions, we have
concluded at tWs time to stay with 1I1e an masonry exterior as originally proposed. AU material is proposed
to be 8"xI6" colorcdrock face block with matching mortar color, We will use a precast "sill" to delineate
the base block from the top block. We will also be adding the detailing at the two-story gym walls as Bill
Lawrence showed you. These plans will be to you by the end of today. We will continue to evaluate the
costs and the look of smaller masonry block and/or "utility sized" brick CODStrUctìon for the upper portions
of the walls.
I also understand that you discussed phasing with Bill. It is our intent for the City of Chanhassen to review
Ibe phasing as presented in the architectural plans originally submitted. The initial phase one is Ibe
southerly classroom wing. Phase 2 is the Gym addition. As I mentioned, phase ODe and phase two may be
constn!cted at nearly the same time.
I appreciate all of your efforts throughout this design and review process.
Sincerely,
Chapel Hill Academy
~~l-
Darnel A. Blake
Director
\
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
.APPLICANT: O~c,r""\ HìI\ AccJ€-W\t.¡
ADDRESS: "";010 W Î ßTL.-I. s+ru. t
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
<Sc< W\.e..
e. k..V\~.Se-v1 , M,J
.
'5<;; !> II
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 9C¡1- i'zoZ
Mr. ban ¡ß1¿¡j:.~
TELEPHONE:
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit
- Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements
_ Interim Use Permit - Variance
_ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit
_ Planned Unii Development' _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Sian Permfts ,
_ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign .;~
;i:- Site Plan Review' ...x.. Escrow for Filing Fees/ Attorney Cost"
{,cp Dß ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARNlAPlMetes
250 .¡- '":>~O = and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ h<O~
-
A ßst of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
1"wenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8v." X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
- Escrow will be requIred for other applications through the development contract
NOTE _ When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
. NOTE· When muniple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME (! IltY)~! /-1;1/ IlcCfd~W/7.
LOCATION Gmt! Pfcr¡'rs Blvd a. Cd 7't'iJ '5-ff"t1~+
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
S I!.L. s..... rv......,
I
"
PRESENT ZONING
DI
oI
1.
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION fv blìc ( Sew\Ì - R..b l~c-
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION {)v~\ìc l ~Wlì - Pv¡'l~,-
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST WlQ)+~ ç ~ ["'VI Re..vì~~
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and roost be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should. confer wnh the
Planning Department to determine the spec~ic ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to cerUy that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements wnh regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. 'have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (enher copy of Owner's Duplicate Cert~icate of nle, Abstract of nle or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of materia! and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consuiting fees, feasibility studies, etc. wnh an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
]' also understand that after the approval or granting of the permn, such permns shall be invalid unless they are recorded
!against the \nIe to the property for which the approvaVpermn is granted within 120 days wnh the Carver County Recorder's
'Office and the original document retumed to Cny Hall Records.
~~~o
Signature of Applicant
'6/3Il q,,¡
Date
~~ '6t~ - bìr.tc..t'of
~l ~:,~
Fee paidt¡::,~¡), <K)
Signature of Fee Owner
f>.pplication Received on "5-Þf' '¡; i Q,'~ q
10'" C
Receipt No. . !-- D
, The applicant should contact staff for 8 copy of the staff report which wfll be available on Friday prior to the
'T1P..Ptlnn If nf"l' ,..,...ntøMoI""I Þ ,..,.....If...' ....... ....._...... ...",...~ __,,_ ~ ~- ~.- - .. " . .
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for
an Expansion
APPLICANT: Chapel Hill Academy
LOCATION: 7707 Great Plains Blvd.
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area: The
applicant, Chapel Hill Academy, is requesting site plan review to allow an expansion to the
existing building on property zoned Office Institutional and located south of West 78th Street,
east of Frontier Trail, and west of Great Plains Boulevard, 7707 Great Plains Boulevard.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project During the
meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 18, 1999.
IS A BOVY
¡ FRONTIER TRL
,NHASSEN, M- 55317
JP R HILLM"IN ESTATE ETAL
NANCY E HILLM"IN ETAL
) NINE MILE CREEK PKY
OMINGTON, MN 55437
JALD A & JUDITH MSCHMIEG
30X 397
,NHASSEN, M\I 55317
:ITAGE PARK APARTM::NTS
THIES & TALLE M3MT INC
78TH ST W
30X 250
,NHASSEN, M\I 55317
IALD F MCCARVILLE
¡ WARNER LN
JND, MN 55364
A IVERSON
.1
,NHASSEN, M- 55317
.NHASSEN M:DICAL ARTS LP
THIES & TALLE ENTERPRISES
78TH ST W STE 260
.NHASSEN, M\I 55317
OMBERG COMPANIES INC
30X 730
.NHASSEN, M\I 55317
:ALD SCHLENK, JEAN VON BANK
\RY GOETZ
78TH ST W
,NHASSEN, M\I 55317
B PROPERTIES LLC
I KOEHNEN CIR
ELSIOR, M- 55331
PAUL F & RITA M ROJINA
220 77TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, M\I 55317
CHAPEL HILL ACADEMi'
306 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, M- 55317
BERNARD & HELEN KERBER
221 77TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, M\I 55317
MARK A PEARSON
207 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN, M- 55317
DANIEL W & AUDREY E FUELLING
222 77TH ST W
CHANHASSEN,M- 55317
GREGORY J & KAREN J ODASH
221 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN, M\I 55317
DANIEL J & JEANNE M BURKE
225 77TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, M\I 55317
RONALD & ELAINE ROESER
222 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN, M\I 55317
LINDA LENORA KEELER
304 77TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, M- 55317
BARBARA A HAML TON
224 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN,M\I 55317
VIOLA BUSCHKOWSKY
206 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
\
\
PATRICIA ANN BERKTOLD
226 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOHN W & PAULA J ATKINS
220 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
BLANCHE M SCHUTROP
302 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHRISTOPHER & D ANNA COX
222 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN,M\I 55317
GEORGE P SHORBA
306 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN.MN 55317
THOMAS & CHRISTY STODOLA
21101 OAKDALE DR
ROGERS, MN 55374
FRANCES M JACQUES
308 CHAN VIEW
PO BOX 44
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
GERALD W & LOIS A SCHLENK
225 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, M\I 55317
JAMES M & PATRICIA D M"IRTIN
3740 UNION TERRACE LN
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
PHILIP R HILLM4.N ESTATE ETAL
C/O NANCY E HILLtMN ETAL
4900 NINE MLE CREEK PKY
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437
JOHN E & KAREN M KRAEMER
7703 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
MARY E JANSEN ETAL
7720 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RICHARD A & ELIZABETH MNUSTAD
7721 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
BRIAN P & COLLEEN S NUSTAD
7791 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
DONALD D & tMRY GOETZE
7610 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
JAMES S JR & DIANE D BURANEN
7616 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MICHAEL & CHARLENE BOGDEN
7617 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RICHARD & KATHY GAVERT
7701 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
LARRY A & KATHLEEN A SCHROEDER
7720 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WILLARD & KATHRYN PAULY
7721 FRONTIER TRL
PO BOX 8
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
KEITH R & LISA KUPCHO
7723 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
STEVEN R NELSON
7725 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PAUL G EIDEM &
ANDREA F GRIFFITH
7727 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DEAN A ROERICK &
JENNIFER L STODOLA
7604 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
DOUGLAS J & WENDY K SUEDBECK
7605 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CARLOS M MARROQUIN &
KIMBERLY L MARROQUIN
7606 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
WILLIAM P HANSON
7607 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN.MN 55317
TRACY L & JANE M MESSER
7608 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DOUGLAS J KOCH
7609 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JAMES M & PATRICIA D MARTIN
3740 UNION TERRACE LN
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
JOHN T BUSCH &
GARY M CHRISTENSON
7607 HURON
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MARTIN H & BEVERLY J RICKER
7608 HURON
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
JASON L & MONICA A LEMCKE
7609 HURON
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
ROBERT T & SUSAN J V\ELLlVER
7611 HURON
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
12/29/99 11:09 FAX 6129367839
CENTEX HOMES
~001
December 29, 1999
Ms. Sbarmin AI-Jaff,
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen Minnesota
By fax @ 937,5739
Re: Chapel HilI Academy - Site Plan approvals
Dear Shannin:
Your staff report dated December I, 1999 identifies parking as I!J1 item to be evaluated with the future
phases of approvals. The proposed master plan relies on the assumption that the proposed parlång layout
and quantity meet the City's requirements. I would like to get staff acceptance of the master plan parking
scheme as part of our initial approvals.
The ordinance requirement is for one parkiDg space for each classroom or office room, plus one space for
eacb one hundred fifty square feet of eating area, auditorium Or gymnasium or cafeteria iutended to be used
as an auditorium. The current auditorium including aisles, excluding the ~e, is approxim¡rtely 6300
square feet (42 parking spaces). The master plan ca1Is for a reduction in the auditorium to about 4000 sf.
(27 parking spaces). The master plan gymnasium is 6300 square feet (42 spaces) and the master plan
cafeteria is 2600 sf (17 spaces). The master plan has 22 classrooms and approximately S office rooms.
Basing the parking requiremeJIt on the largest meeting area, the existing auditorium or 1IIe future
gymnasium each require 42 parking spaces for a total of 72 requited spaces.
The proposed master plan parking layout provides for 84 parkiDg spaces. While this exceeds the ordinance
requirement by 12 spaces, it does not meet the actual needs for special programs held 1hroughout the year.
We are confuieJIt thot the nearby municipal parldng plus adjacent on-street parkiDg will adequately handle
these special event parking needs. Additional 04-slre parlcing could be provided on 1IIe eastern portion of
the sire, but thot would require removal of existing mature trees ond is not desired by Chapel Hill Academy,
or tbe City.
r appreciate all of your efforts throughout this design and review procoss.
Sincerely,
Chapel Hill Academy
U~9{~ .
Daniel A. Blake
Director
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION TO THE
EXISTING BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL AND
LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET. EAST OF FRONTIER TRAIL AND
WEST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. 7707 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD.
CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Kathy & Larry Schroeder
Dan Burke
Dan Blake
7720 Frontier Trail
225 West 77th Street
306 West 78th Street
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: That begs the question. It doesn't seem like enough. We're growing and reducing
parking. There's a lack oflogic.
Al-Jaff: Right now, and we've been monitoring this every time we drive by. It's not scientific
the way we have been monitoring the parking lot, but I have not been able to see more than 30
cars at any given time and I'm talking about the times when kids are dropped off or picked up
and at that time the teachers are usually at school as well. So there isn't a parking problem out
there today.
Peterson: We'll double the size.
Al-Jaff: We're going to double the size. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate to us
that with the ultimate expansion of this site the parking will still be adequate.
Aanenson: Can I just add one thing? The original use was for the church, which is going to a
school use with different standards and I think that's really why we're allowing it to be. The
church had an overlap. ..
Peterson: Are you inferring or stating that they have convinced you that 84's going to be
enough? We have to do that now because we can't start this and assume that 84 is going to be
enough.
Al-Jaff: One of the things that we have talked about is activities. Evening activities that will
potentially generate additional traffic for a concert or a game or after school activities. We have
a parking lot right across the street and then the Medical Arts parking lot is available also. In the
evening those parking lots are pretty much empty. So is there an alternative? Yes there is but at
this time with this proposal, with the classroom addition, there is enough parking. I don't have,
we don't have enough information at this time to tell you what the ordinance requires with the
13
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
ultimate expansion, but it's going to be pretty close. One of the things we talked about when we
were discussing old town was having the addition come in this direction to cover the parking lot.
However, this would mean losing more parking spaces and there was an option to put the parking
on this side. We wanted to separate the parking, vehicular area from the residential area so, and
it would have also meant cutting down large number of trees in this area so that is one of the
reasons why the addition came to the northeast side.
Sharmin AI-Jaff continued with her staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff?
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Sharmin, did you want to include a condition about the
size of the block?
Al-Jaff: Condition number 19 reads the applicant shall use a smooth face block not to exceed 4
x 12 inches.
Peterson: Other questions?
Burton: Yes Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, I'm sorry. On the variance part, my understanding. Just
make sure I've got it right. The City's asking that they move it closer to the street. The
applicant.
Aanenson: Well I think it was mutual.
Burton: It's mutual? Okay. Okay.
Aanenson: And we believe it's consistent with the neighborhood standard.
Burton: Okay. A couple questions about some of the conditions. On condition 14, we talked
about the detailed parking and built in lighting plan. Is it necessary to add language that says that
which complies with city ordinance requirements at the end of that? Or is it.
,
Al-Jaff: Sure.
Burton: Condition 16 talks about a fence.
Aanenson: Can we go back to that one moment?
Burton: Yeah.
Aanenson: I think too, based on where this is, I think they want to have something that's
residential in character too. That was one of the things we talked about in the old town plan as
far as height. So it may be something you want to look at in a different phase because they're not
doing that parking lot. No changes at this time to the parking lot so that may appear in a different
14
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
phase. Is that correct? So that might be something, that's a good point. I think that's something
that we'd want to look at. The neighborhood situation.
Burton: On the condition 16's talking about fencing around the play area, and I wasn't sure or I
didn't know if the City had an ordinance dealing with fencing around play areas. I think this
came up at a recent one too and I can't remember what happened.
Aanenson: Chain link is acceptable.
Burton: But do we have an ordinance on that or no? No?
Aanenson: The only ordinance on fencing is ifit's adjacent to a street where you may block sight
line and that's generally where it's more opaque. So under the circumstances I don't believe.
Burton: Sorry to keep rattling off these questions here but the, we have the right-in, right-out
suggestion by engineering and it looks like they had incorporated that but I don't think it's a
condition and I'm just wondering kind of out loud here if that should be a condition.
Al-Jaff: It's not part of the, they're not planning to put in the right-in, right-out with Phase I.
Burton: They're not? I'm looking at a map or drawing here that shows right-in, right-out right
there.
Al-Jaff: Yeah, it's part of the ultimate master plan. At this point with Phase I, the only change
that's takin~ place as far as the driveways go is closing off the driveway, the service driveway off
of West 78t and putting in a new driveway off of Frontier Trail.
Burton: Yeah, I guess 1 have a question for engineering as to whether we should require it at this
point with the addition of the Phase I here that it be right-in, right-out.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I put it in the staff report just to make everybody aware of the overall
master plan. How it was going to impact traffic and that we foresee that a right-in, right-out
would be acceptable at that location of West 78th Street. It's my understanding that there are no
improvements or changes going to happen to the existing parking lot out there so at this time it
would not be appropriate or necessary to include that as a condition. We just wanted to make the
applicant aware and the commissioners aware that sometime down the road it will happen.
.
Burton: Okay.
Kind: Mr. Chairman, while we're talking to engineering I have a question about that removal of
that existing drive. Would the applicant be required to get rid of that curb cut that's on West 78th
and replace it with a regular curb?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, that's correct. We would require a full restoration of
the boulevard and curb along the street. Similar to what's out.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
Kind: Should that be a condition?
Hempel: Typically we require a construction and right-of-way permit any time they're working
out in the city's right-of-way and we would address it through that method.
Kind: Okay, thanks.
Hempel: Good point though, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: A question... I guess in past applications when we've had a demolition we've had a
condition stating that the applicant should obtain...
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I don't think I can address that one. It's more of a
building issue. They may require some sort of a demolition or removal of the modular units so.
Sidney: Correct. Do you think that's redundant to...
Aanenson: I think it puts them on notice. That's fine. You can just leave it open and say secure
any necessary permits.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: I have one Mr. Chairman. Ultimate buildout shows a 43.2% hard surface coverage
compared with 65% under ordinaI\ce. What are they at right now and what do you feel about
43%? Is that? \
Al-Jaff: It's in compliance with ordinance so they exceed what ordinance requires by 20% so
it's truly not an issue.
"
Blackowiak: Just for some reason to me it just looked like it was.
Al-Jaff: More than that?
Blackowiak: Yes. Much more than that.
Al-Jaff: It is for the play area and then you have all of the green space around it.
Blackowiak: Okay, good. It looked deceptive. The next question, I think you characterized the
sidewalk along Frontier as being substandard. Would this be an opportunity when the Chapel
Hill connects from West 78th to Frontier to do some upgrading at the time of the demolition?
Because you know that there's probably going to be further degradation of the sidewalk when
16
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
you've got heavy machinery going across and that type of thing. Do we need to address that as a
condition?
Al-Jaff: When I went out there three times to really look at what are we going to lose in the
process, there are some mature trees that add so much character to that area. So it's a choice
between an upgrade sidewalk or mature trees.
Aanenson: Let's clarify upgrade. Talking width. There might be some...that are damaged but
as far as making it the standard width of 5 feet, that would change the character by the loss of the
trees. It's our recommendation narrow. There's some substandard areas that's something else
we can look at.
Blackowiak: Okay, I was thinking it was just sort of in general substandard.
Aanenson: Well we can certainly look at that and make that recommendation.
Blackowiak: About another condition. Do we want to add a condition that the modular building
seemed to be removed upon completion or is that addressed in a prior condition?
Aanenson: I think it goes back to what LuAnn was saying and we're just going to cover that by
adding a condition that secure any necessary building permits.
Blackowiak: So that covers the removal of the modular buildings then?
Al-Jaff: On the Phase I sheet that shows what they are going to accomplish within the first
phase, they are showing that they are removing those modular buildings. That's why we didn't
put it down as a condition.
Blackowiak: Okay. I just didn't want them to move them and not remove them so. And I think
that's it for me, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
.
Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. Music room backs up to the neighborhood so how do we manage
sound?
Al-Jaff: One of the neighbors says it's there now.
Conrad: Is there special acoustics in that part of the building? Are there doors that should, we
have to manage that and it doesn't matter if it's there now or not. We just have to manage that.
It's a bigger, I'm assuming it's a bigger music area and it's more important and blah, blah, blah.
So that has to be managed for future neighbors, or the current neighbors. Going back to
something that was said, Kate. You talked about condition 16 and the fence. Your condition 16
says show the type offence. Staff report said decorative but we can't enforce decorative, is that
what you said?
I7
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
Aanenson: No, I said a chain link is permitted currently.
Conrad: It is permitted but decorative was what the staff report said we'd like.
Al-Jaff: Correct and it...
Conrad: Chain link, my definition chain link is not decorative. Let's make that real clear.
Aanenson: Like wrought iron or something like that.
Al-Jaff: That we encouraged.
Conrad: Encourage but that's not in the staff report so I'm assuming we can't, we can't enforce
that.
Al-Jaff: That's true.
Conrad: We can't?
Al-Jaff: We can't enforce it.
Conrad: The service road to the north, how is that buffered from the neighborhood or do we treat
that like an alley or what is the, what are our standards for the service road that goes in there
Dave?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. 1 really didn't look in too great of detail on that part of
it yet being that it's a future phase. I guess I apologize for not addressing that.
Conrad: Okay, it will be an issue when it comes in. I like the footprint a great deal, and you're
not asking for whether I like this or not right now but I like it a whole bunch. I think there's
some really good things. What I don't like are not part of what we're approving tonight, and I
don't get involved with design but I really don't think that, and I think the applicant's going to
have to persuade me in the future that this is really fitting the neighborhood. I like the south
elevation. I think the elevations that are working for the city are really good and those elevations
we can approve tonight. I think those work. In terms of our conditions, fitting into the
neighborhood. Making it work with the neighborhood. I don't buy it yet and somebody's going
to have to, I don't need to belabor the point. I'm making the point right now. That the east
elevation, if that doesn't fit to the neighborhood other than a low prof1le but everything else says
it's really different from the rest of the neighborhood. I like the trees. I think you're doing the
right job protecting the trees on that site. I don't think the chain link fencing is doing us any
good over there other than we need fencing for those areas but my point is when it comes back,
I'm going to be real critical of the north elevation. Anything that's facing the neighborhoods.
They don't look to me today like they're fitting. Okay. I think the elevations that are being
approved tonight fit. They fit the busy downtown. They fit the commercial side of our business.
.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
Those are okay. They're fine. There are constraints but I don't, what I'm seeing in terms of the
long range is not acceptable.
Aanenson: Can staff just comment on that real quick? I guess that's part of what Sharmin was
trying to frame up is that what we're doing tonight is setting in place some other, you know
trying to unify the theme and location of the addition so while that first phase may work, it has an
implication for the rest of the site.
Conrad: Okay Kate but.
Aanenson: But I guess I'd ask you to evolve that a little bit further.
Conrad: Well you've done a nice job or the applicant has on the south elevation. There's some
break-up. There's some elements that are reflecting roof type. Not a flat design. You know
we've got a flat roof here. We're putting a flat roof in and that doesn't reflect the neighborhood.
You break it up on the south elevation that faces West 78th Street. I think that's good. And so
you've got the flat but you've broken it up with some architectural detail which you do on all
other commercial projects that come in to this city. Then you take the north elevation that faces
the residential area and you're saying well it's because it's their back yard we may be able to let
this work. And because maybe it's probably down 6 feet or from whatever their elev~tion is, it
may work. I could be persuaded on that but it's not very pretty. Doesn't fit right now so based
on how you set me up in the staff report, what we're trying to do in the old town, it doesn't work.
On those elevations so I would be critical on those elevations. I want it to work. I want it to fit
into the neighborhood. I want those additional details. They may even be non-functional which I
don't like but they may be non-functional but they have to reflect or echo the neighborhood and
maybe it's just going to be a different staff and applicant presentation at that point in time to
show me how it will break up the visual and trees break up the visual and that might work for
me. But again, I don't want the applicant rubber stamping the long range future because I'm not
here. I think the staff and the applicant is presenting on the brick, I think that's fine. But I think
we just need to take imother look at those two elevations in the future.
Peterson: I feel like we're doing our pre-vote.
Conrad: Yeah, and I'm sorry about that.
Peterson: No, that's fine. Because I felt, my comment to Sharmin before you made yours was,
I'm not convinced I like any of the elevations. I think, as I looked at them and whether it's the
presentation to me or whether it is missing something. I think it's probably a little bit of both. I
think after your comments Ladd I look at the south elevation and I think, I do like that the best. I
don't know whether I'm all the way there yet because the gymnasium's still a lot of building
there. Without, and I can't, with the drawings that I've got, I really can't get a good feel as to
whether it's broken up enough or whether we can do more in there. But I didn't feel good about
what I saw and I don't know whether it's the drawings that aren't there or I just can't put the
pieces together yet. But something is missing. I don't know what. I will in the next 20 minutes.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1,1999
One technical question Sharmin. One of the materials you passed around was the roof material.
Is that, is the roofing?
Kind: No.
Peterson: Yeah it was. Burgundy.
Kind: Oh that's the standing seams.
Al-Jaff: Canopies.
Peterson: Just over the entrances right? Part of what I didn't like, and I couldn't picture it again
was working with the asphalt and the straight roof. It seems like it's kind of plopped in there but
again it's tough to visualize it, particularly on a small drawing but anyway. Pictures are good.
Al-Jaff: Please keep in mind this is just a mas~ There aren't any windows on this.
Landscaping is not shown. There are a lot of things missing.
Peterson: Okay. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Name
and address please.
Dan Blake: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Dan Blake. I'm on the
Board at Chapel Hill Academy. I guess our address there is 306 West 78th Street. Sometimes
called 7707 Great Plains Boulevard. One of those two. Chapel Hill Academy is a 28 year old
organization or institution, a school. It's been in the southwest metro all of that time but in
various locations. We started leasing the Old St. Hubert's building partially in 1997, fully then in
1998 and we have purchased the building now in 1999. Chapel Hill Academy is a kindergarten
through 8th grade non-affiliated Christian school. We currently have about 323 students. That's
about 200 families. We, our vision is to grow to somewhere between 425 and 450 students
which would be two classes of each grade. Right now we have two classes in some of the
younger grades. One class in the older grades. As I said, we've been using this property for a
couple years now and I think, anyway 1 haven't heard differently that we've been very good
neighbors so far. What we've submitted, as Sharmin explained, is a master site plan. It was a
requirement of our interim use permit. It was a good exercise for us to go through though to kind
offorced us to go through the steps maybe sooner than we would have to think about what is our
needs for amount of building on the property. How do uses flow together and where ought they
be because otherwise we likely would have said, well we need to add something so let's build it
and then figure out what to build next. This way by going to a master plan really helps us work
towards a long term goal. And our long term goal is to accommodate those students. The things
we need to accommodate our students are classroom space and gymnasium space. The master
plan, this model, if we can get that back. Classroom wing. Gymnasium area. Talking about
Phase I, but I guarantee you Phase II's going to be right behind, only because we're not quite sure
how much money we have and exactly how things go together. Are we not talking about the
details of every phase but it will be very shortly that we're going to be back talking about at least
the gym space. Some of the other parts of this fulfill much more of a want than a need to our
.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1,1999
organization. The current site, you know you're obviously all aware of it, has a lot of history. As
Sharmin mentioned, the building was built, I have a ton of photos here and I'm not going to put
them up on the screen. I don't know how well they'd show but if anybody wants to look at them
we can. The building was built in a few phases with many different materials and architectural
styles so that really represented a challenge on how to add to it and how to come up with a long
term plan that fit things in. So when I hear a couple of comments, or a comment about like the
existing roof. Well it's there. It's difficult to say well we'll just tear it down. We'll straighten
the flat roofto match the rest or make everything else. It's not'a pitched roof in the sense that
most of the architecturally pitched roofs exist and that it really doesn't have enough slope to it. I
don't think at least to totally fit in to a theme of pitched roofs. You know we have the cemetery
across the street from part of it. The Old St. Hubert's church building. Those are the kinds of
things, strip center to the west. The Country Clean store and start getting into the apartment
buildings as you go along the south side. A wide variety of things around us to try to relate to so
you know it does become an interesting challenge to figure out how to make the various parts of
the building fit together with the surroundings. We're talking about Phase I today, but it's
critical for us to get a strong feeling towards the master plan because if we don't have a strong
feeling towards the master plan, we would not be comfortable going forward with Phase I not
knowing what the rest of the phases are because they're all integral parts and like I said, they'd
likely follow soon behind once we get the classroom and we put the gym space right up to the
gym is very old. Very non-conducive I guess to the classrooms surrounding it. And so those are
what we've identified as our immediate needs. So you know whatever input we have towards the
master plan I think is important. One, for us to hear and two, to be on the record because we're
going to have some amount of reliance on what you're telling me. If things aren't okay, we want
to hear that. I'll address some of the specific comments I did hear. Parking. My interpretation
working with our architect, interpretation we believe we need 70 parking spaces. This shows 84.
I think by nature elementary schools don't need much parking but never have enough for a big
event and then you look at well where does it spill over? I think staff kind of addressed how that
would work. So it really is the change of use from a church to a school that's driving the parking
down and making that acceptable. Second specific item that I heard and will comment towards is
the relationship to the properties to the north. Again I have some photos but those properties sit
anywhere from 8 to 13 feet higher than what our, the base of our building. And are full of very
large mature evergreens and deciduous trees. We've met with those neighbors, the ones that
chose, or were interested in meeting with us and talked to them, I don't believe we have issues
with those neighbors to the north as to how this building is proposed. You know there is a
building there now so yes, we're adding to it but there is a building there now so it's not as
though it's a new use being plugged in there. We do have one particular house to the east that is
obviously very sensitive to what goes on because that house is located very close to the existing
building and as well as anything that we've proposed and the Schroeders are here tonight and
may choose to comment to that regard. But I think that's where the critical side relative to the
adjacency to a residential but I think one of the things I would ask you as planning
commissioners to remember is this piece of property is zoned office institutional. It's zoned for
an office or institutional use. I understand the need for transitions and respect for adjacent uses,
but I think we have to be careful not to try to apply residential standards just because it's next to
residential. We're getting, we get commercial really fast as we go next door and there will be
less of a concern with transition the further we go. And so I think that comes into the overall
~
21
play. The last thing, I guess I'd like to ask if anybody has any questions before I talk about
exterior materials because I'd like to address site plan or building footprint issues if that would
be okay.
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
Peterson: Questions so far?
Dan Blake: Okay, that's just fine. I want to talk a little bit specifically about exterior materials
and I know that this is an important issue to the city and it's important to us as well. Our
obligation to comply with the ordinances to be compatible with their surroundings and use
appropriate materials. There isn't anything specific in the ordinance that says small brick, big
brick, block, stone, glass, whatever it be. Ifwe were in Eden Prairie, it would be easier because
their ordinance is more specific. So our charge is to be compatible. There is very little brick in
the residential next to us. Mostly siding. A little bit of stucco. The residential to the, the
apartment buildings as you go to the west, and the closest one is stucco and brick on the comers.
As you go further beyond that it's wood siding with brick. The adjacent commercial uses are
siding or, the visible side we see of the strip mall.. .across the street, which I think is a fairly
unfair comparison for anybody to try to match. That building was built some 100 years ago or
so. We struggle at Chapel Hill with what can we afford to pay to provide an education to
students. We tried to come up with a plan that was mostly functional but hopefully wasn't
distasteful. You know there's architectural elements, some of these little metal roofs that stick
out there, that serve absolutely no function. We know that that was important to the city to add
those kinds of things to the picture. They cost money. That means that something else doesn't
happen. Brick versus block is a big dollar item. Look around at what's being built. The use of
colored rock face block is very common these days. Certainly more in industrial applications but
you have it in your downtown. Not whole buildings but you have portions of it. The new or
relatively new Waconia High School is built completely out of rough face block in an 8 x 16.
The big picture that Sharmin holds up, that's what a block, that's the size of a block. You have
that size block in your town all ov¿r the place. The new CSM office industrial building on Dell
Road that is adjacent to single family is being built out of that kind of material. It adds a lot to
our cost and it means if we don't go that route, it means we have to reconsider what we can do.
How much building we can build. How fast we can grow. And whether we can even, whether
we ought to even try to exist in this location. I really do understand the city's desire to start ~
something that is very desirable in this location and that this is, sets a trend not just for the rest of
our building but for any other redevelopment in this end of downtown. And if somebody wanted
to contribute the difference, we'd love to put all brick on the building. And maybe we would
end up doing it anyway even if you approved a rock face block scenario because we don't know
how much money we can raise yet to do that, and I'd certainly be willing to make a commitment
to try to make that work. But 1 doubt that I can come back later and say well now go to block if
we've agreed on a brick material for now so. My first choice would be that we approve, that the
City approves a, allows the 8 x 16 block material, rock face block with the color schemes as
shown. And that we make a commitment to try and figure out how to accommodate as much of
the smaller materials as possible. And thoroughly investigate the cost of such. Let me just
explain a little bit on a construction side. Generally, especially on a gym wall like this, generally
that wall is a masonry construction. If! build it out of rock face block I build a block wall. The
outside is the outside, the inside's the inside. If! am required to put brick on it, I build a block
22
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
wall and then I build a brick wall next to the block wall. The brick costs almost as much as the
block and it serves no pmpose other than decorative, which is a pmpose certainly. But the block
is structural. Becomes a structural and an outside finish in one piece as opposed to two walls
next to each other. And that's why the cost is so much higher. It's not the cost of these bricks
versus these blocks. It's two walls versus one wall. As an altemative I would be willing I guess
to offer, if we were to look at, you can go back to this picture. We could go with rock face block
in the reddish color and along the bottom, all along the side.. .and we'll go with the brick and the
lighter color on the side that.. .along 78th Street.. .back wall, the side wall and the back and then
the back around the building be the block material with the color scheme to match so that from a
distance you can't tell. But from close up you obviously can and I think that's true and a worthy
point that from a distance it's difficult to tell block versus brick. With the types of materials
available to day, but obviously from up close it's a different feel. I know that your job as a city is
to try to set flavor and tone for the, what's best for the city as a whole. We just have to be careful
to not regulate things out of existence. You know there's a building there now. It's built out of4
or 5 different materials. I don't know if you consider it an eyesore or not. I guess we thought it
was okay enough to buy it. But that's what's there. It doesn't make the newspaper that this is
just a horrible building so as much as we'd like to build the ideal, maybe other alternatives don't
have to be bad. I guess I'll leave it there. That was a lot and answer any questions anybody has.
Peterson: Questions? Thank you.
Kind: Actually I do have a question. I was waiting for Ladd. Mr. Chairman, I have a question
of the applicant or for you. I was wondering if you considered bus turn around areas, having that
be separate at all on this master plan? I know that we're just, we're looking at the master plan
and specifically Phase I but.
Dan Blake: Well the bus turn around or the concept was really what drove the additional parking
lot connection to West 78th Street. It allows a bus to turn in right, follow the edge of the
building. We do have some busing. Not a lot of busing. Most of our stuff's still carpooling.
We only get busing from the District 212. 112. People and I think it's one or two buses total. So
it's not like a typical elementary school where there's 12 buses lined up. We have one or two, so
that's why we wanted to create a smooth flow for the buses to drop off at the curb side. Why the ~
sidewalk plazas and then straight back out and form a loop so not intemal to the parking lot but
we try to create a nice loop for that.
Kind: My concern is people who are doing the car pooling, fighting with buses to get to that curb
but you anticipate future use won't even be that much busing or?
Dan Blake: We don't think there will be a lot more busing because it's not available, it's not
really available to us from outside the district. Our students are spread around Eden Prairie,
Minnetonka as well as Chaska-Chan. What our design is if you look at the master plan is a
whole bunch of sidewalk and curb side that follows that whole edge of the parking lot
intentionally so there was a lot of bus and parent space for drop off and pick up. We also have
designed into the plan a main entry and then like a young grade classroom entry so there are two
23
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
doors that different students would be dropped off at so they wouldn't all have to be dropped off
at the same door. To spread that out a bit.
Kind: I also have a question about the existing roof, which on the plan is specified that it's an
asphalt roof. I was surprised when I went out there to look at it that it's actually kind of a rock
aggregate.
Dan Blake: It's asphalt, not like a roofing shingle.
Kind: I thought it was an asphalt shingle is what I expected to see.
Dan Blake. It's too flat to have shingles on it and shed water. It's asphalt like a flat roof would
be with gravel spread on there. I suppose mainly decoratively.
Kind: And your plan is to keep that long term.
Dan Blake: That roof was recently redone. Our plan is to keep it generally in that configuration.
It is, it's too flat to put an asphalt kind of shingle. I'm not sure how the wood shingles work,
which is what's on the church part of the building.
Kind: Right. That was my next question.
Dan Blake: But the choices are a smooth roof or that kind of asphalt roof with the rock on it and
primarily for decorative purposes.
Kind: So long term you might consider standing seam?
Dan Blake: Well I would consider it but you know that standing seam metal roof costs as much
as this whole addition probably so we wouldn't, that would be a logical thing to look at when we
go to rebuilding that area I guess and to make it match some of the other stuff.
Kind: And the sanctuary roof, any long term plans on that?
.
Dan Blake: Well, most of it starts to become hidden because we're building out in front of it.
You can see a little bit of the peaks left. We would probably replace those with similar wood or
go to the same material that we have on the, on this roof for the portions that are visible. You
know nobody sees the building from this view either unless you're flying by. From the ground
it's tough to see that roof even now. One of the things I want to add, talk about that we didn't,
that isn't overly evident and you can't even tell in this model. We chose to design a higher, a
little bit higher wall than we needed to and we choose to make that outside wall be all of our roof
top screening as opposed to maybe more like a 10 foot wall and then have separate screening up
above. We think with that it will, it makes the rooftop, any rooftop equipment even less
obvious. Obviously it's still there but.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
Kind: I like that. Another question about, what was I going to ask? Shoot. I lost my thought.
Oh, the windows. On the elevation it looked like they're glass block. Are they regular windows
with grids in them?
Dan Blake: Regular windows with lines in them, yes. Not glass block. Most likely they
wouldn't be operable. We'd have air handling in there. You know I guess I'm learning this as I
go but in the, in days gone by there was a lot of glass and classroom windows and now schools
are rebuilding those walls. Taking out most of that glass. They don't have so much heat gain
and then replacing it with better air handling internally so you don't have to have the windows
that can open and you have a more secure environment and that would be our long term plan for
the existing portion of the building as well as the new stuff.
Kind: That answers my questions on why there's less windows than what's currently out there.
Also I noticed that your plans are for Phase II to be the gym and Phase III to be that area that
connects it. How do you propose to get the kids to the gym?
Dan Blake: Well the Phase II plan, which why we're not talking about it specifically tonight is
because I don't have all the detail for it. We're proposing to have a temporary link of some kind
to connect the structure, and that's as opposed to putting the gym next to the building because
we're trying to put the gym where it makes sense for the master plan and the master plan has a
cafeteria which will kind of be the lobby to the gym and an auditorium. Instead of putting the
gym right next to the building, so we would build a temporary link that would connect the two
buildings. Probably have some entrance into the length and it would become the activity
entrance until there's a front administrative area. The details of how that would get built I didn't
show staff so therefore they said well we can't really address it now. But it'd likely be some kind
of nice looking contemporary material I suppose. Whatever that means.
Kind: I guess that's all for now.
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. Just one...
.;:.
Dan Blake: The need is somewhat out of convenience. I don't know, I have to be careful what I
say I suppose relative to a variance. When we started talking with staff, let's go back even
further. Before we bought this property we had some architectural work done to determine
within the bounds of city code, are we sure we can fit enough building on this piece of property
to work. We concluded yes. The building expansion that was proposed by that particular design
scheme was completely...where a couple of the existing houses stand. It didn't take long for the
neighbors and staff to say, there's better ways to do that expansion, and we never intended that to
be the plan we were going to build but it was a spot to start discussing. We heard from staff that
there was a desire to move closer to West 78th Street. More like the commercial stuff to the west
and somewhat consistent with the residential further to the east. Personally I think staff's
direction was probably to be out even closer than we were. I'm thinking they were expecting
more like 10 or 15 feet from that sidewalk instead of 30. We designed a building, a classroom
25
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
wing which was basically a 30 foot by 30 foot classroom and a 12 foot corridor and a 30 foot
classroom next to it. It got out to that point. We've got some of those little architectural
extensions out there and that's where the variance came in. We were working to put a bunch of
the building out that direction. We didn't go as far as maybe staff wanted to so that's the reason
for the variance is to bring it closer to what else is out there. I guess sometimes we use what else
is out there as a reason, the excuse for the variance. In this case maybe our design was to match
what's on both sides of us. Even across the street that building is probably in the neighborhood
of 10 or 15 feet from the property line. So I guess that's the why. Right now if you were to ask
us can we live with 35, it would drastically alter the entire design because I can't cut 2 or 3 feet
off of those classrooms and still make them functional so we would have designed it very
differently if we thought we were trying to strictly adhere to the design standards.
Peterson: Other questions? Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please.
Kind moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Larry Schroeder: I'm Larry Schroeder. I live at 7720 Frontier Trail. We're right on the comer
that would be the northeast comer of the property. We're the neighbors of Chapel Hill. We've
lived there for 30 years. There's always been a school there. I have no problem with the kids,
the music room. I kind oflike it. I open the windows and it's god awful but it's nice music. It's
kids. So I think Dan and Chapel Hill are doing a great job. I have no problems with it
whatsoever. Thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else?
Dan Burke: I'm Dan Burke. I live at 225 West 77th which is around the comer on 77th Street.
From the designs that I had seen before, I think this is a great improvement. It does a nice job I
think of cutting the block diagonally. Setting the back side more residential. And the front side
more ofthe commercial side. I think by doing that we really will be able to get a nice division 014.
the block and in the neighborhood. My concern is in the lighting on the back side. I would like
it to be more on the residential, we have much more of a dark neighborhood and would like more
down lighting versus broad lighting. That's my.
Peterson: Anyone else? Close?
Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Commissioners, who wants to tackle this one?
Blackowiak: I'll jump in. I agree with much of what Ladd said. Although we're just looking at
Phase I this evening, I do think we have to kind oflook to get an overall flavor of the project
26
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
because what happens in Phase I is going to directly affect Phases II and ill and I don't think we
can take Phase I without at least considering the other, the implications on the other phases. The
north and east elevations do seem to be lacking. South and west look good. There could be
some more interest. I do realize it is an 01 zone. I understand that. But we also need to
understand that it's in the Highway 5 corridor. We can expect a little higher quality standards.
And we also have neighbors to consider and it is a residential neighborhood so I don't think it's
being unrealistic to ask for more interest and to try to make something that the neighbors are
going to be happy with and the city will be happy with too. And I think, when I say city is the
community. Not just the city staff. I think you're going in the right direction. I do like it.
Specifically regarding the block. I don't know that I feel comfortable requiring totally smooth
face block, and I'll throw this out. I might say maybe, we set a percentage. Maybe 50% or
something. I certainly can understand that the smooth face block on the gym might be cost
prohibitive and not necessarily expansive. But I think there are trade-offs to be made if we go
that route and offer smooth face block on a portion of the building. Then I think that in return it
is fair to expect some increased interest on the northeast elevation. I don't know exactly what
that would be. I don't want to tell you what that would be but you know, as long as we can all
work together I think we can come up with a nice product. Overall I don't have, I really don't
have any problems. I think that the staff report adequately addresses the issues that I have. And
at this point you know, given my comments, I'm very comfortable with what I see.
Peterson: Other comments?
Kind: Sure, Mr. Chairman. I'll jump in. I agree with Alison's comments regarding the brick
face. I think it's important to get it to be not that industrial size. I'm wondering if it would be
acceptable to have just the buff colored areas on those elevations, on the one story elevation be
that 4 x 12. Is that the size? And that that bottom red, the rock face. Just kind of throw that out
as a possibility. I kind of like actually the contrast. I don't know. That might be a compromise
way to go. What else? But I do feel strongly that it needs to be that smaller size on the bulk of
the building. I agree with that big time. What else? I'd like to see more windows. I understand
the energy conservation aspect. Maybe that doesn't really apply to this phase but on the future
elevations I think that would be something that I'd like to see, especially on the gym. I think it's
very common to have those high, I call them kind of skylights and to get some natural light in the..
gym. I'd like to see that on the gym. But that's future so whatever. And then I have a few
suggested additional conditions that I'd like to throw out for discussion and see what the rest of
the commission thinks of them. That we, number 16. I know Matt said something about this,
with that fence. And we talked later about the chain link aspect. I think because we're in the
Highway 5 overlay district that we could request a higher quality fence because of where we're
talking about. And maybe the language is that we strongly encourage the applicant to use
decorative fencing or I don't know. If that's a must thing or not. I'd be interested in other,
people's comments on that. But the chain link fence that's there has got to go and I'm glad to
hear that it is going. Right along West 78th Street. And then the other addition that I'd like to
add is the possibility of mixing the brick. I'd be interested in other commissioners' thoughts on
those two things.
Peterson: Other comments?
27
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chairman...I do like the building... I agree with staff's recommendation...
almost industrial looking. ..
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I forgot a couple things regarding pedestrian friendliness. The sidewalk
that's being added along Frontier Trail that connects up with our cute little 3 foot, will be
extended down to West 78th Street. I'm wondering if the applicant would be willing to add the
proposed addition student entrance on the east side had that sidewalk go directly out to the new
trail. I'm just thinking for pedestrian access to the student entrance that it would be silly to walk
all the way down to West 78th and then go back up to the student entrance. So that sidewalk I
think needs to be added there. And then also for future phases, I'd like to see a sidewalk along
Great Plains on the east side. I'm having directional problems tonight. On the east side and I
know that's a future phase but I'd just kind oflike to put that out there for part of the master plan.
Al-Jaff: West side.
Kind: It would be west side?
Peterson: East side of Great Plains. West side of the building, east side of Great Plains.
Kind: Are we talking about the same place? Okay. It would be on the east side of Great Plains
Boulevard. Right?
Peterson: West side of the building.
Al-Jaff: West side of the building.
,
Kind: Yep. And that's probably a'future phase. That's all for now.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple brief comments. I think it's a very nice project and
welcome addition, well it's already an addition to the community but I think these are nice
improvements to the school. I again mirror the comments of my, of the other people on the
commission. I can't really weigh in on the materials on the size of the blocks. I don't have a
very good, personally a good idea of what visual impressions would be so I really can't add
anything to that and I'm not sure how I feel about it because I don't really have a good grasp of it.
With respect to the lighting I do think it's important that we make a condition that it has
residential character, especially on the neighborhood sides. I do want to add that I do like the
phases that we're looking at. I'm not very high on the other parts that aren't before us tonight
and I think that the comments on those were good. I guess that's really it. I don't want to repeat
everything everybody else said but those are my general thoughts. I think it's a nice project and I
think the staff comments are good.
.
Peterson: Others?
28
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
Conrad: I'll just, I probably segwayed, or I probably said what I believed in halfhour ago. It is a
good project. The footprint is right. The variances are right. The variance is correct. That's the
right thing to do. Phase I is good. It's everything else that we're not sure of, which is a make
that a real positive signal. I think everybody here is concerned with the sides facing the
residential community. It's not where it can be so you're okay in Phase 1. I don't see that
changing your long range plan. Us approving Phase I tonight but it does say the long range plan
has to be altered in terms of its architectural detail as it's projected or presented to the neighbors.
I think whoever makes the motion has to really deal with the brick issue. I haven't heard
anybody really deal with it very well yet and I'm not the one that's going to deal with that so.. .or
come up with an absolute recommendation on that. My last point is on the gymnasium. I'd
really encourage you to when that gets built in Phase II I think it will be fairly critical again
because you're bordering neighborhoods. The neighbors and we'll want to see how that does fit.
It's a bigger wall and I'd really like you to encourage you to look at the smartness of putting
windows on that. And that's way beyond my scope of expertise but lighting and a gymnasium,
I've been in those that are lit and it helps. It helps. It would also help break up that wall I think
so that's just a future to what's presented tonight. I would hope that somebody would give clear
direction in terms of the brick.
Peterson: My comments about that dissimilar to my peers. Architectural interest is a consistent
theme we've heard. Certainly one that I still have. Secondly, I am genuinely not comfortable
with the existing asphalt roof. I mean, and I don't have a resolution to that. It's a very unique
roof now and we're basically boxing around it and... that's the best alternative. .. .convinced that
it is. Drawings now don't do it justice as to its unique drawings here...as a normal pitched roof
and it looks distinctively different than what the drawings are. .. And I don't know if there are
any alternatives but it will be interesting to see other versions that may... As it relates to the
brick, I feel strongly about using the smaller ones, primarily because of, the smaller I believe
have more of a residential feel to buffer, nicer transition versus a larger being an abrupt
commercial kind of a... The property CSM is doing, I wouldn't want the CSM building in this
neighborhood. CSM isn't in a neighborhood. This is a neighborhood. We have issues and
possibilities that go along... I'm offering more... than I am positive but I've got, with those final
comments is there a motion and a second please?
Kind: Mr. Chairman, before I make a motion can I just get a feel from my fellow commissioners
as to how you feel about the larger block on the reddish portion. Or do you think it should be all.
~,
Peterson: I think it should be all smaller brick but that's one opinion.
Kind: Okay, I'll venture a motion here. I move that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel
Hill Academy master plan as shown in plans dated August, received August 31, 1999 with the
following conditions. 1 through 19 and then I have a couple amendments and a couple to add so
here we go. Number 5, these will be conditions that Sharmin has that we don't have in front of
us. So the number 5 will be the changes that Sharmin had. Number 10, add a (d) that says
obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits. Number 12. Add a sentence at the
end that says the new sidewalk should connect with the student entrance on the east side of the
29
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1,1999
proposed addition. Number 14. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that
incorporates the city's 90 degree cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances. Number
15. Show the location of the trash enclosure for Phase I and the materials used to build the trash
enclosure should be the same as those on the new building. Let's see, number 16. Show the type
offence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged to use a
decorative fencing. And then number 19, Sharmin will you read what you have for that?
Al-Jaff: The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 inch block for exterior material.
Kind: On Phase 1. So we don't have to deal with the gym aspect at this point?
Al-Jaff: This would reflect this...
Kind: Let's have 19 be that way. Number 20. Chain link fence along the south and southeast
comer will be removed. Or shall be removed. 1 guess that's a better language. Number 21. The
existing driveway along West 78th shall be removed and the curb cut replaced with new curb to
match existing curb on West 78th Street. And number, I'm up to 22. A detailed sign plan. We
didn't talk about so I'm just throwing this one in here freelance. A detailed sign plan including
lighting must be submitted and comply with city ordinances. And number 23. The modular units
must be removed.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Conrad: I'd second that.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion to that?
Conrad: So the block issue is per staff recommendation?
Kind: Correct.
Peterson: Other discussion?
Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site
Plan #98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy
master plan as shown in the plans dated received August 31, 1999, with the following
conditions:
I. Increase plantings for buffer yard areas in order to meet ordinance requirements.
2. Increase plantings for boulevard trees in order to meet ordinance requirements.
3. Increase plantings for parking lot area in order to meet ordinance requirements.
30
.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
4. Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. Fencing shall be installed around trees prior
to grading.
5. Any trees removed in excess of submitted plan without City approval will be replaced on
site at a rate of2:1 diameter inches.
6. The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre-and post-development storm
water runoff calculations and verifY that the existing storm sewer system in Great Plains
Boulevard can accommodate additional runoff being generated from the proposed expansion.
7. The applicant shall obtain from the City a construction right-of-way permit for all work
within City right-of-way or easement areas.
8. rfutility connections are required with the proposed addition, staff will need to further review
in greater detail the utility service proposal.
9. The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup fees in accordance with City
ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be based on the number of SAC units
determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission.
10. Building Official Conditions:
a. The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler system
installed throughout.
b. Existing portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as necessary. The cost
of which need not exceed twenty percent of the total project cost.
c. Meet with the Inspection Division as early as possible to discuss issues related to
Building Code.
d. Obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits.
11. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFP A
13.
b. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine
if additional hydrants will be required.
12. The sidewalk along Frontier Trail shall be connected to the sidewalk along West 78th Street.
The new sidewalk shall maintain a minimum width of 5 feet and be tapered down in width
as it connects with the existing sidewalk along Frontier Trail. The new sidewalk should
connect with the student entrance on the east side of the proposed addition.
.
13. The overall parking will be evaluated as each phase of the master plan is approved.
14. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree
cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances
31
15. Show location of trash enclosure for Phase I. Materials used to build the enclosure shall be
the same as those used on the new building.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
16. Show type offence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged
to use a decorative fencing.
17. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities to guarantee site improvements.
18. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances.
19. The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 inch block for exterior material.
20. Chain link fence along the south and southeast corner shall be removed.
21. The existing driveway along West 78th shall be removed and the curb cut replaced with
new curb to match existing curb on West 78th Street.
22. A detailed sign plan including lighting must be submitted and comply with city
ordinances.
23. The modular units must be removed.
AIl voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS.
Peterson: Any old business Kate?
Aanenson: Yes. I have old business. AT&T tower has been continued until December 13th.
They have acquiesced and they are redesigning their tower to fit some sort of a cross theme. We
haven't seen it yet but they figured out a way to make that work so we're very pleased about that..
Unfortunately we haven't seen exactly how it's going to look yet but it should be coming in this
week and it will be going to the City Council on the 13th.
Sidney: You said the...
Aanenson: Yes. The tower next to the church. It will be incorporated with the cross in the
design. We don't know, we haven't seen it yet.
Peterson; A 300 foot cross.
Sidney: That's what I'm thinking it's going to be.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
Aanenson: Yeah, we haven't seen it yet. Then I believe there was questions last time when I
wasn't here about what was going on with Pulte. The Council did reconsider it for conceptual
approval so it still has to go through, back through another public hearing with you regarding
preliminary approval and as a part of that we're working hard to come up with some different
designs on the homes that you made suggestions on. The different types of products so there will
be five products so we're working on that. So that's kind of the status of some, the old business.
I have quite a bit of new business if we can jump to that.
NEW BUSINESS.
Aanenson: We had tabled tonight the Lake Susan Hills Apartments. Sharmin's been working
hard on that. It's now been called, just to break up the confusion with the other apartment
building which appears to be back on track too, it's now called Powers Ridge. Unfortunately the
other one had the Lake Susan name but somebody else got it. So that one's called Powers Ridge
right now. Just for your edification, I don't know if you received notice of that but there is a
neighborhood meeting at St. Hubert's tomorrow night regarding this project. We haven't seen
the revised drawings. Sharmin's been working hard on the one building that faces the majority
of the neighborhoods, we've asked them to break it up. It does have underground parking so we
asked them to put a break in the building.
Blackowiak: Excuse me Kate, Powers Ridge is Lake Drive and north oflike Osprey and that
other one?
Aanenson: Right. It's between Powers and Audubon. Yeah, and that's the one that's on your
agenda tonight. It was pulled off and the reason was is we wanted some different architectural
changes and they were meeting with the neighbors again tomorrow night at St. Hubert's. I
believe it's 7:00. If you were interested in that I can give you the time if you want to call me. So
that's where that one is. We are working on the Freseth property. That will probably be coming
in January. That's the property between Mission Hills and just south of the new St. Hubert's.
South of Rice Marsh. Eckankar is coming forward. We're working on an environmental
assessment document doing a master plan for that entire project.
Conrad: What is that?
.
Aanenson: Ultimate campus for their entire property.
Conrad: You've seen it?
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: Bigger than?
Aanenson: Yes. It will be a big project. It's in phases. I mean right now what they're coming in
with is an office building. Part of the property was guided institutional, which does allow those
types of uses. Part of the property is also, to the north of the site, is residential so we're going to
33